It is currently Sun May 18, 2025 4:46 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 50  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:02 am
Posts: 313
Oh I believe SD heart is in right place. And please dont think I am talking smack, didnt mean it that way. I am of the thought if people disagree with my thougths, I can agree to disagree. :)

My Granny told me when I was little and me and a cousin were fussing, that if people all agreeded with the same thing, some one is lying at least to them self. And what a dull world it would be.

Prayers for Peaceful Rest to all!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 3:11 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
I wasn't aiming comments at you Mimi.

And nothing posted here at RT has been out of line at all.

I just fear it COULD go that way. :24

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:02 am
Posts: 313
Oh good :) and I totally understand where your coming from.

Night night Kind One


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:42 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Night Mimi.... nice to see you at RT

Image

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 4:43 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
From CTH.......


John McLachlan says:
March 11, 2013 at 3:42 am


Although they did not do so at first, the Martin family and prosecution now claim that the prolonged screams and pleas, heard during witness phone calls to the police, during the fatal confrontation, which preceded the gun-shot which killed him, were those of Trayvon Martin.

If true, then this would surely have several implications:

The prolonged screams would imply that the defendant conducted a prolonged and violent assault upon Trayvon Martin, before shooting him.

This would indisputably mean that the defendant was of a depraved mind.

It would also imply that the defendant was prepared to physically assault someone, whilst risking being disarmed by his victim and be killed, himself, while conducting his assault.

How many armed men commit murder using a gun, after first subjecting their victim to a prolonged physical assault?

Is this a common occurrence, a rare occurrence, or nearly unprecedented?

Would someone intent upon murder, who was carrying a gun, not be more likely to shoot their victim from a safe distance and avoid unnecessary risk to himself?

How many men commit murder, after summoning the police to the crime-scene?

Surely such a prolonged physical assault should have left Trayvon Martin with some visible injuries, yet the only injuries recorded upon Trayvon Martin’s body were scraped fingers and the fatal gun-shot wound.

The absence of physical injuries upon his body, other than the fatal gun-shot wound, is thoroughly inconsistent with the prosecution’s necessary claim that Trayvon Martin was subjected to a prolonged assault, as heard in the witness’ phone calls to the police.

It was only the defendant who sustained injuries which were consistent with being the victim of a severe physical assault and therefore much more likely that the screams and pleas heard during the witness’ phone calls, were those of the defendant.

This would imply that the depraved mind was that of Trayvon Martin.

The affidavit for probable cause for arrest of the defendant was substantially dependent upon the testimony of an alleged ear-witness who is now revealed to be a proven perjurer and whose testimony includes both proven error of fact and unsustained speculation.

Initially, this alleged witness was claimed to be 16 years old, but now is claimed to have been 18 years old at the time of the shooting.

A private attorney, now attached to the prosecution as co-council, is also proven to have committed perjury and may soon be proven to have engaged in either soliciting or altering the testimony of this alleged witness.

The errors of fact included within the testimony of the prosecution’s principal alleged witness reflect precisely the same errors of fact which were incorrectly described upon police reports released to the Martin family and their private attorney, who is now co-council for the prosecution, before their belated discovery of the alleged witness.

The Martin family and their private attorney have significant vested financial interest in the arrest of the defendant.

The state has concealed the identity of its principal witness, whose authenticity as an actual witness has never been confirmed and may even be refuted by forensic evidence, hitherto withheld without any legal justification.

The state has admitted that it has no evidence which contradicts the defendant’s claim that he acted in self-defence.

Neither has the state provided any evidence that any of the defendant’s known actions, prior to the fatal confrontation, were in any way unlawful.

The prosecution had insufficient confidence in its incriminatory evidence that it bypassed the Grand Jury, before preparing the probable cause for the arrest of the defendant.

The prosecution has refused to release discovery to the defence, which it is legally obliged to do, under Florida law.

The presiding judge has consistently refused to order the prosecution to release discovery to the defence, to the detriment of the defendant and in violation of his constitutional rights.

What threshold of accumulated evidence is required to justify the opening of an enquiry into possible malicious prosecution by the state?

Can such an enquiry be initiated, while the same possible malicious prosecution is in progress?

Who has the authority to authorize such an enquiry?

The corrective measures which protect citizens from malicious or over-zealous prosecution, must exist.

In this case, they do not seem to have been implemented and rather may be actively suppressed.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Rumpole wrote:
Glad you like the flag :42

But as I have said.. you can choose any avatar image at all... I'll change it... or you can.




I'm not comfortable talking about SD here. I don't agree with everything he posts.. I have posted minor things at CTH in replies to him.

Overall, his heart and his head are in the right place... big time.

I know people disagree over the O'Mara thing... several have said so here and at CTH.

It is reasonable to state where opinion differs from SD.... several people have done that here.....

...... but I think it would be better to explore that with SD at CTH


IMO we are "stuck with" O'Mara until the trial at least.

IF that goes badly.. there will be very MUCH in the way of recriminations on several fronts.. including the representation that MOM and WEST provided...


I don't doubt SD heart, it his stubbornness when it comes MOM, he must know it is a thorny subject, yet he makes proclamations he can not back up. It rile up some of the cheerleaders and it is disruptive, but it never proves anything. This is one time when the CTH resembles Leatherman's site. Anything the Prof says is script from God. If he leaves as an opinion or an educated hypothesis or theory it would not bother me so. But, he get indignant if his views on MOM are challenged, he has banned people for disagreeing with him. That not to say he is wrong, I don't know that and neither does he, he may believe it due to whatever knowledge he has acquired but the little that we know is not enough to raise to that level. Funny thing is I have been a big MOM critic, from what little I know, MOM did leave GZ holding the bag. He did not put up much of a defense on GZ, and was the blandest of advocates for GZ from the beginning.

Having said all of that I hope you don't think I was starting problems at your site, sometimes I just ramble, and I love your site just as I love the CTH. It is interesting that this issue causes so much dissertion, because that is the way it should be.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:00 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
    "Having said all of that I hope you don't think I was starting problems at your site, sometimes I just ramble, and I love your site just as I love the CTH. It is interesting that this issue causes so much dissertion, because that is the way it should be."


I think we are getting close to a problem.

As I said... if people have an issue with SD... raise it at CTH

I DO NOT want RT to be seen as a place to vent and criticise SD or CTH safe from the ability of people (like SD) to respond.

If I had an issue with CTH... I would raise it at CTH.

It is really off topic as far as the case goes anyway.

You (people here generally) are free to post YOUR views on MOM and the case.... SD's views need not come into it. K?


:NN19

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 6:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Message received, that was not my intention, to bring controversy to your site, I was mostly responding to Deb. MY BAD. :45

PS I have brought it up at the CTH, my most recent attempt was to point out that perhaps GZ, likes MOM and his handling of things, and that he is doing exactly what GZ wants. It did not go over well. LOL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:14 pm
Posts: 1124
boricuafudd wrote:
Message received, that was not my intention, to bring controversy to your site, I was mostly responding to Deb. MY BAD. :45

PS I have brought it up at the CTH, my most recent attempt was to point out that perhaps GZ, likes MOM and his handling of things, and that he is doing exactly what GZ wants. It did not go over well. LOL



Okey-dokey, Obi-Wan! I got it too! :6





:43


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 8:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:16 am
Posts: 710
boricuafudd wrote:
Message received, that was not my intention, to bring controversy to your site, I was mostly responding to Deb. MY BAD. :45

PS I have brought it up at the CTH, my most recent attempt was to point out that perhaps GZ, likes MOM and his handling of things, and that he is doing exactly what GZ wants. It did not go over well. LOL


Ditto...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:28 am
Posts: 3672
boricuafudd wrote:
Message received, that was not my intention, to bring controversy to your site, I was mostly responding to Deb. MY BAD. :45

PS I have brought it up at the CTH, my most recent attempt was to point out that perhaps GZ, likes MOM and his handling of things, and that he is doing exactly what GZ wants. It did not go over well. LOL

That GZ likes MOM is a real possibility, boricua. Of course, I don't know GZ personally, but there could be any number of reasons he remains. GZ is still young enough to not know "when to fold 'em" and cut his losses? He's young enough to be unknowledgeable/intimidated by the legal system, especially one determined to railroad him, and grateful enough to MOM for stepping up? Perhaps he's not savvy enough to read the writing on the wall? Maybe he feels he couldn't do better or maybe he is afraid of the unknown and "the devil you know is better than the one you don't know"?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:14 pm
Posts: 1124
The part that everyone seems to be ignoring is that those funds are ultimately under the control of Zimmerman in that if he decided he could do better than/other than MOM he could simply fire him. The fund doesn't read MOM Defense Fund. It says The George Zimmerman Defense Fund. The Boss IS George Zimmerman.

He hasn't done that.

He is what 29 now? He isn't that young. He certainly isn't that naïve. Even if he started out that way, which I doubt, this past year would have certainly opened his eyes. He has a father that has been around the block a couple of times and is quite familiar with the legal system.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 10:34 am
Posts: 892
Location: Cincinnati, OH, USA
DebFrmHell wrote:
The part that everyone seems to be ignoring is that those funds are ultimately under the control of Zimmerman in that if he decided he could do better than/other than MOM he could simply fire him. The fund doesn't read MOM Defense Fund. It says The George Zimmerman Defense Fund. The Boss IS George Zimmerman.


In light of the second bond hearing, and the stipulations put on the defense fund as a bond condition, are you sure that this statement is accurate? Does Zimmerman truly have full and ultimate control over defense fund monies?

_________________
"That the attacker sustained a mortal wound is a matter that should have been considered by the deceased before he committed himself to the task he undertook." - 5th DCA, Stinson v. State (Fl)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 2:39 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:14 pm
Posts: 1124
He cannot write a check but any but all donations go to him. It is with his approval that those funds are being dispensed. On the fund site, his housing is listed first then the legal part. He changed the ADMIN. Why would anyone think otherwise?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 11, 2013 5:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
chipbennett wrote:
DebFrmHell wrote:
The part that everyone seems to be ignoring is that those funds are ultimately under the control of Zimmerman in that if he decided he could do better than/other than MOM he could simply fire him. The fund doesn't read MOM Defense Fund. It says The George Zimmerman Defense Fund. The Boss IS George Zimmerman.


In light of the second bond hearing, and the stipulations put on the defense fund as a bond condition, are you sure that this statement is accurate? Does Zimmerman truly have full and ultimate control over defense fund monies?


That is a sensible question buy, do we really know it to be otherwise. Have you seen any stipulations to the contrary? Chip I know you like to deal with facts, and unless I am wrong we have not seen anything to say otherwise.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2012 9:34 pm
Posts: 133
There are times I try to think from the other side and say that Trayvon was screaming help because George was holding him and preventing him from escaping. He had his gun in one hand and was holding him in his other. But what I can't get past is why, if that were true, would he allow himself to be bludgeoned like that for over a minute? That's where I draw the line and come back to logic and reality. He wouldn't and no one would.

That would be my presentation to a jury. I would then point out that he held out as long as he could, but fearing for his safety, his life; he shot. Not to kill, but to get him off of him. If his intent was to kill, he would have fired more than one round.

John Mc's post made me think of this.

_________________
No matter how many times a lie is repeated, it will never become the TRUTH!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:27 am 
Offline
ADMIN
User avatar

Joined: Tue Mar 27, 2012 5:30 pm
Posts: 57118
Location: Pomeroy's Wine Bar
Daily Daft Posts From Justarse Quest.

Cloud Cuckoo Cockatoo Land

Sabrina is now being hailed as the STAR WITNESS for the prosecution? Really?

She was not there? She is not a "witness" at all!!

She was not even a regular part of Trayvon's life who might be some sort of character witness..



Quoted posts and discussion of JQ go to...........
viewtopic.php?f=45&t=63&p=25113#p25113


Please stick broadly to the GZ case in this thread


Image
If only Trayvon had kept his hands in his pockets, none of this would have happened.

_________________
Image Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Ejarra wrote:
There are times I try to think from the other side and say that Trayvon was screaming help because George was holding him and preventing him from escaping. He had his gun in one hand and was holding him in his other. But what I can't get past is why, if that were true, would he allow himself to be bludgeoned like that for over a minute? That's where I draw the line and come back to logic and reality. He wouldn't and no one would.

That would be my presentation to a jury. I would then point out that he held out as long as he could, but fearing for his safety, his life; he shot. Not to kill, but to get him off of him. If his intent was to kill, he would have fired more than one round.

John Mc's post made me think of this.


There are a couple of reasons I have the same conclusion, would GZ be able to hold TM for a almost a minute while on his back. Then I think had TM decided to run into the dark, even if he had seen a gun, would GZ been able to catch up and shoot him. To me the answer to both is no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2013 11:58 pm
Posts: 168
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
This is what their case has come to, their "star witness" did not witness anything, was not living with TM, had not been involved with him for a long time, has no pertinent knowledge of the incident, and the only thing she can do is assert that TM was the one screaming, of a recording of a phone conversation in the background. Wow, how the mighty have fallen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 12, 2013 1:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:14 pm
Posts: 1124
She didn't even go to Sanford after her son was shot and killed. I can't imagine any mother doing that. She didn't go until they needed her to identify the voice on the tape as Trayvon. I truly don't believe she would have gone then if it hadn't been for Tracy Martin being unable to affirmatively state that it was TM crying for help.

I have felt sorry for the father on more than one occasion but I have never felt one iota sympathy for her.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 983 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 50  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group